I just saw a CNN segment in which CNN contributor Hilary Rosen called Roy Moore a a child molester. Far be it from me to defend someone who is a child molester. I just hadn't heard that evidence was provided that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Moore is, in fact, guilty. So just curious. Has evidence been provided that proves he's guilty?
Not guilty of dating teenage girls, BWT. Up until a month or so ago, that was not a problem. It might not have been cheered (depending on the girl), but it wasn't considered immoral or illegal. The only moral standard for sex over the last few decades has been consent. As long as two or more individuals of legal age consented, there was no moral condemnation warranted where sex is concerned.
So based on the two actual cases whereby Moore was in jeopardy of violating the closest thing to a consistent ethic we have, has evidence been presented? If so, I stand in solidarity with all who would see justice done. Though I actually do that now. For if no evidence has been presented beyond 'credible accusers', I still maintain innocent until proven guilty. Even if our enlightened and tolerant society has decided it's time to move our post-truth age into a post-proof age as well.
The question stands. I mean it. If he has been proven guilty, then condemnation is deserved. I'm merely asking the question.
The goal is like with priests - to get the idea stuck in people's minds regardless of what the truth might be.
ReplyDeleteThe old 'say it over and over again a thousand times, and it will become true' approach. Funny that so many were outraged about that used against priests who are so willing now to do the same thing, just about their own pet bogeymen.
Delete